Can someone please explain to me why the UK foreign policies, in regards to the middle east, are favoured upon the rogue state of Israel? I can understand why the American administration has to employ such policies, but why does the UK?

Well its clearly a rogue state; whereby it believes it has a "divine" right to the land of the Palestinian people; implementing policies of ethnic cleansing; slaughtering and displacing millions of innocent men, women and children. The State itself has been declared a "rogue state" by leading academics in the field of the Middle East conflict and rightly so: it is the Government that is held as being responsible for numerous horrendous atrocities.

Posted by: scottishlaw Posted on: Sep 18th, 2006, 11:34pm Everyone seems to think they have some "divine" right to that particular plot of land?

I dont quite think "everyone" claims to have a "divine right" to the land. Certainly the current Palestinians have never claimed that and nor have the now-extinct Ottoman Empire who previously ruled over the land. The current Palestinians have only ever wanted some of their land back - that was unduely snatched from them. It is a known fact, that the land now controlled by Israel, seen it's Golden Age under the Ottoman Empire - a time where Jews, Christians and Muslims all lived peacefully together. Of course now, there is an abundance of ethnic cleansing and the Zionist regime wants the land solely for the Jewish people.

I think that Iraq, under Saadam's rule, was a rogue state, however, i believe this is the case for all middle-eastern countries. The leader's are power-hungry and corrupt people and their is no sense of democracy. Having said that, i believe, undoubtably, that Iraq is in a much more disasterous state than it was in previously - unfortunate for a place once called "the jewel of the World".

The problem with Israel is that no one wants to be seen as anti semitic by offering any criticism. Any state that acts in the way Israel has since 1948 needs to be criticised and the appropriate action taken whether that state is Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever. Can't we see that one of the catalysts for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the complete failure on the part of the west to stand up to Israel? If any other state behaved like they do you can bet that the UN, the USA and the UK would be rushing in to stop them. Why can't we be even handed here? Criticism of Israel is not anti semitic. It is a s comical as Ali G's line"Is it cos I is black?"In Israels case it is not because they are Jews that they need criticised but because they act as a terrorist state with no repsect for the rights of their neighbours. They often act in ways that the Nazis did which is quite ironic.

Grumpy, Im glad that you have finally said something that is factually correct and have to say, i agree with everything that u have just said. Although you maybe a dim-witted "wannabe lawyer", you have clearly demonstrated sound reasoning coupled with a sound knowledge of this current issue.

Thanks for the compliment. Incidentally, I am not a wannabee lawyer. I was a lawyer but got out of practice due to being pissed off by the way young entrants to the profession were litigation obsessives who would conduct court cases as a game or worse still a war that they had to win at all costs regardless of the effect on the clients. They no longer teach common sense at uni or in the trainieeship.

allright fair enuf. Lets stop this "squabbling" and get back to the issue here!

The other day i read an article on the BBC website where a UN Human Rights envoy had delcared that the Gaza strip had now become a huge prison. I think this is absolutely disgraceful and ironically enough, i remember someone in the media light saying that Israel had only moved out of Gaza in order to "make it one big prison", before the pull-out had actually occured.If any other State in the world acted as inhumanely as Israel, it would be deemed as ethnic cleansing. Why is Israel allowed to break Geneva conventions, harbour illegal weapons of mass destruction, not implement UN resolutions and contravene International and Human rights law?

At the risk of sounding anti semitic (which I most certainly am not) the problem is that since the holocaust no one has had the guts to stop Israel behaving in many ways that the Nazis did. I understand their right to defend themselves and never to lie down to another country again but that does not give them the right to terrorise the Palestinians and, as Simba says, effectively imprison them in their own land. The USA uses Israel as a policeman in the middle east and supports all they do. The Jewish vote in America is significant and politicians are too scared to lose their votes. Tackle them head on and the risk of Islamic terrorism will be reduced as they rightly see the west as duplicitous when it comes to breaches of human rights by Israel.

the problem is that since the holocaust no one has had the guts to stop Israel behaving in many ways that the Nazis did

I dont believe that it comes down to having "guts": if the international community really wanted to end the violence, surely they would put a stop to the incessant massacres. But something holds them back, what is it? and it certainly isn't "guts".

Quote:

The USA uses Israel as a policeman in the middle east

They use them to "police" who exactly? The US already has a presence in the middle east, so why would they need Israel to impose its authority in the region? and its not as if Israel has been implementing an authoritative role in the region - many arab countries refuse to recognise the State - and it imposes no authority over any of the other countries in the region.

Quote:

The Jewish vote in America is significant and politicians are too scared to lose their votes.

If you can, can you please expand on this as i would for you to share your knowledge on this.

Quote:

Tackle them head on and the risk of Islamic terrorism will be reduced

Lets get real here grumpy and not use incorrect terminology. The term "Islamic terrorism" is an oxymoron. Islam is a religion of peace; the word "Islam" itself means peace. Islam is about peace and promotes peace, not "terrorism". Hence, it is very foolish to use the term "islamic terrorism" when addressing the views of an extremely small minority of people. Lets not indite a global faith of over one billion people by the actions of a small minority of individuals; just as you wouldn't indite Jesus Christ for the actions of Marlon Manson, Tim McVeigh, Pope Alexander VI and countless others. I am not a muslim myself but i hate to see people adopting incorrect and insulting terminology as a result of media propoganda. All faiths deserve to be respected. I hope that you will refrain from using such incorrect, inaccurate and contradicting terminology in the future.

You have raised an interesting and important point though. Terrorism has dramatically increased as a direct result of US, Israeli and UK foreign policies. A recent US report reflects this. If the US and the UK would change their policies, no doubt, terrorism, on the whole, would see a dramatic decline and the people of the World will be much safer. It is a shame that even the leaders of great nations fail to acknowledge this simple hypothesis that could save the lives of many and bring peace and justice to the World.

Simba, If a terrorist is French can't we call him a French terrorist? Similalry if a succession of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims can't we call them Muslim terrorists? We seem to be trying to be PC by not calling them this when that is the reality. While no one can say that Islam is a terrorist supporting religion that does not take away the fact that a significant number of Muslims have turned to terrorism which is fundamentally contrary to Islamic teaching.

So far as the Jewish vote in the US goes, it has long been recognised that the very large Jewish community in the US carries with it very great political power. Any party seeking to criticise Isarel runs the risk of being accused of anti-semitism and thus lose the Jewish vote. A risk too far so they keep their mouth shut.

Israel is an aggressor. They dress it up as self defence but generally they attack and often out of proportion to the grievance. The west invaded Iraq because we didn't like Saddam's regime. However, we happily sit back and say nothing about Israel who are the main cause of tension in the middle east.

The US and UK foreign policies are inconsistent and arbitrary. Why should anyone in the middle east pay attention to anyhting we say when we support oppressive regimes because it suits another agenda?